Re: [PATCH] [RFT] 2.6.4 - epic100 napi

[OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Francois Romieu <romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> > Yes, maybe. But, if after spin_lock, it loop may call the twice
> > __netif_rx_schedule(). And netif_rx_complete() doesn't call dev_put().
> > It will leaks the dev->refcnt, I think.
> 
> @$*#!zW
> 
> The following patch should avoid the leak as well as the packet rot
> (untested, 1:33 AM, apply on top of previous serie).
> 
> 
> Multiple invocation of __netif_rx_schedule() in epic_interrupt() while
> epic_poll loops over __netif_rx_complete() leads to serious device
> refcount leak.

Do you care the lost interrupt? If so, I was miss reading it.

IIRC, PCI spec requires the level-trigger. So devices asserts IRQ
signal until the driver clears the pending interrupt. No?
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>